Jobs vs. climate

Sunday

Jul 25, 2010 at 12:01 AMJul 25, 2010 at 1:12 PM

WASHINGTON - The TV commercial features Senate Republican candidate Rob Portman warning of a "new energy tax'' from Washington that would nick people for turning on a light or firing up a computer, while costing Ohio as many as 100,000 jobs.

WASHINGTON - The TV commercial features Senate Republican candidate Rob Portman warning of a "new energy tax'' from Washington that would nick people for turning on a light or firing up a computer, while costing Ohio as many as 100,000 jobs.

The ad refers to a bill approved last year by the House that would curb emissions of greenhouse gases through a market-oriented regulatory system known as cap-and-trade. The none-too-subtle message is that Senate Democratic candidate Lee Fisher ardently supports of the bill. There is a chasm between Portman and Fisher this election year on many issues, but in fact the two appear equally opposed to a Senate bill aimed at curbing emissions of carbon dioxide, believed to cause global warming.

"I don't see any difference at all,'' said Frank O'Donnell, president of the Clean Air Watch in Washington. "I think Fisher would rather (the issue) go away.'' Late last week, Democratic leaders shelved the bill for this year.

Like Portman, Fisher opposes cap-and-trade. Both candidates want more federal dollars for developing a commercially viable way to burn Ohio coal without emitting greenhouse gases.

Both want to use more nuclear power to provide clean electricity. And both want to reduce American dependence on foreign oil.

"I cannot and will not support clean-energy legislation unless it continues to invest and develop clean-coal technologies and unless it makes sure that we do not do this on the backs of manufacturing states by incentivizing jobs being shipped overseas to countries that don't have pollution limits,'' Fisher said.

With their opposition to capand-trade, Portman and Fisher occupy a comfortably traditional niche in Ohio political history. From former Republican Gov. James A. Rhodes to former Democratic Sen. John Glenn to Republican Sen. George V. Voinovich, Ohio politicians have viewed clean-air laws with deep suspicion.

That's because of their fears that clean-air laws will impose steep costs on Ohio's industry, raise the price of electricity and damage the state's coal-mining industry, "the third rail'' of Ohio politics, O'Donnell likes to say.

"Our politicians have always stood up for jobs first,'' said former Democratic Rep. Dennis Eckart of Cleveland.

The differences between Portman and Fisher are more on emphasis. Portman's TV commercial on cap-and-trade was aired throughout the state, prompting one Republican lobbyist in Washington to say, "That they used it in their second ad tells you they think this is a big winner.''

"There's only one of us who has been speaking out against capand-trade, and that's me,'' Portman says. While Fisher's campaign website deals with clean energy relatively briefly, Portman offers a detailed 10-point plan and boasts of his record as a Republican congressman when he wrote a law that helped preserve 60 million acres of rainforests throughout the world.

He reminds reporters that he and his wife each drive hybrid cars, pointing out that in 2006 he traded in a Ford pickup in favor of a Ford Escape. "When you analyze all the data, there is a warming trend according to science," he said. "But the jury is out on the degree of how much is manmade.''

Although last year's House bill would have imposed a cap-andtrade system on all U.S. industries, that version was been watered down in the Senate, which would impose the system only on electrical utilities. Even that proved so controversial that Senate Democrats decided to scrap the cap-andtrade sections and pass a slimmeddown energy bill.

Under cap-and-trade, a utility plant would need a permit to emit carbon dioxide. Plants that slash their emissions by switching from coal to nuclear power or natural gas could sell their permits to other power plants that haven't reduced emissions.

The federal government would gradually tighten the caps to force carbon emissions down. That would raise the cost of burning coal, but neither the Senate nor the House bill actually imposes a new tax, as Portman's commercial suggests.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded last month that the Senate bill would cost a typical household between $79 and $146 a year.

Despite the report, Fisher would prefer to reward "companies and families who reduce pollution and increase their energy efficiency." He cites working with Gov. Ted Strickland to help pass a bill that requires Ohio to meet 25 percent of its energy needs by 2025 with alternative sources.

"I am more convinced than ever that because Ohio is the thirdlargest manufacturing state, that we have a very bright clean energy future if we make the right investments now," Fisher said.

But he warned that while he personally believes "wind and solar are wonderful ways to move to a clean energy economy, I am also realistic enough to know that we need to look at biofuels, clean coal and nuclear. And the faster we move to a clean energy economy, the more the prices go down."

If Congress fails to approve a global-warming bill this year, lawmakers might inadvertently open the way for President Barack Obama's EPA to impose its own greenhouse-gas rules, as required by a 2007 Supreme Court ruling. And if Congress prevents the administration from acting?

"We've come through the hottest month of the hottest six months after the hottest decade on record,'' said Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the Democratic-leaning Center for American Progress Action Fund in Washington.

"This sort of severe heat will continue, and in the Midwest there will be increased severe precipitation events, there will be prolonged drought in the Southwest, and, at some point down the road, there will be sea-level rise.''

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.